• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Unknown

About suwen.lee_

  1. Hey guys, Over the summer we were asked to come up with our TOK presentation which we will be giving once we go back to school. I have formulated some questions but I am still a little lost over which one I should choose. Here are the one's that I have shortlisted: 1. How is knowledge throughout history constructed? 2. What is the role of emotion in the construction of knowledge throughout history? 3. What is the role of authoritative figures in the construction of knowledge throughout history? 4. How does authority construct knowledge? I was thinking of using the first question as I feel that it is broad enough for me to explore. The other questions I felt were a bit more restrictive. Is the first question an alright question or is it too broad? Thank you for all your help!
  2. Hey friends, Yesterday I did my first ever Paper 3 question and I think I kind of messed up? This will be used as my predicted grade which will be sent off on my uni applications hence I am feeling a little anxious. As the time allocated for our exam wasn't enough, we only had to choose one question amongst two and write one essay. The question I chose read "Analyse the reasons and the results of one military intervention from 1960-80". I chose to wrote about Pinochet as I was sure that he came to power in 1973 in a coup d'eat. Below is the outline of my essay: Introduction: 11th September 1973- Pinochet led a military coup and seized power. Main reason for this intervention was due to Allende's failing policies (especially his economic policies) as well as the tense civilian-military relationships. Main results was that the Chilean people gained economically however lost out socially. Paragraph 1&2 (Economic): Allende's failing economic policies- inflation was at a high, lack of consumer goods, nationalised key industries which made managers/industrialists angry and lost their support. Pinochet able to reverse this with help from the Chicago Boys. Inflation dropped from 500% to 8% per year. The food supply improved and the economy did a u-turn and started looking up. Re-entered global markets and privatizing industries which reverted back Allende's mixed capitalist-socialist economy. Hence justifying the claim that the Chileans gained the most economically. But made markets leaner- increased unemployment. Biggest lost was social (link this to next paragraph) Paragraph 2&3 (Social): Allende also had failing social policies- Unified National Schooling. Led to riots and had to have state of emergency in 20 states. Allowed military to rise to power and Pinochet to seize power in the coup. However socially was not that good under Pinochet either. Human right abuses prevalent. Military junta established and human rights suspended. No right to assembly and political parties dissolved. I also talked about DINA and the trade union leader being killed and the burning of university students. Disappearences, tortures of Leftist/Allende supporters became common. All these showed that under Pinochet, the Chileans biggest loss was socially. Paragraph 4 (Political/Military): Politically Allende wasn't very good either. Did not have much support. Tense civilian-military relations started from Eduardo Frei resulted in the dismissal of General Prats as commander-in-chief of the army. Pinochet replaced him. Without this, Pinochet might not have been able to staged a military coup. The replacement proved significant in the cause of the military intervention. Conclusion: Reiterated argument and showed how the reasons for military intervention was due to Allende's incompetent policies and the results meant that the Chileans lost socially but gained significantly economically. Would this be an alright essay? Thank you for reading and your help!
  3. @kw0573 Once again thank you for your help. I've always struggled with TOK and my teacher isn't a very supporting or encouraging teacher hence I find it hard to approach him for help. For my reason as to how/why manipulation is a form of knowledge construction, I have thought about it and come up with some kind of answer. I was thinking of focusing mainly on arguing how language, memory and sense perception as the main ways in which knowledge is constructed. However these all have very obvious fallacies which all has its roots in the central WOK I would be exploring, emotion. They all are very subjective and can be easily influence by emotion. Language for example can be transient (oral) or written. For oral language, speech can easily be deceived through misinterpretations due to selective hearing. Basically some people believe that they hear a certain thing and omit facts to disprove this. This basically is due to their belief which is derived from emotion. This can also said for written language. I was also thinking of propaganda/books/newspapers written and how written language has been the main source of gaining knowledge for the majority of history (eg: religious books- the Bible etc.). They are moulded to fit the ideologies of those in charge at the time and are aided by deliberate misinterpretations of the text. My next example would be through memory and sense perception. Example: The removal of people in photos after they've been executed (eg: Leon Trotsky after being exiled). The people of the USSR are told to believe Trotsky was a traitor and never contributed to the success of the USSR. Their memory tells them he did contribute however their sense perception deceives them and tells them the opposite as the photos shows that he was not present at those crucial times. This then ties into their knowledge that Trotsky is a traitor and that they should not idolise him. Does this prove that manipulation plays into the construction of knowledge (specifically shared knowledge)? I also want to talk about justified true belief and show how this is an important model which supports how manipulation plays an important role in knowledge construction. Justified true belief → important model to describe how authorities manipulate knowledge (or the construction of false knowledge) Justification- can be formed through imagination. Emotion (ties into central WOK I am exploring) can manipulate. Truth- can be bent to fit their circumstance. Not necessarily concrete in this case. Especially not in the realm of history we’re talking about- and especially in Soviet Union (relates to RLS). Truth can be shaped due to emotion and very reliant on sense perception. (Link to claim that sense perception easily deceived). Belief- obviously believe that it is the correct choice This would then support my KQ as it shows that emotion plays a significant role in the construction of knowledge. Another KQ: How do figures of authority throughout history construct knowledge? Maybe this would be a better one, much broader. As I can explore everything I've said above but also be able to bring in other AOKs. Indigenous knowledge systems can also feature in the exploration as I could explore how the chiefs construct knowledge and compare/contrast this to older historical figures as well as figures of the 20th/21st century.
  4. Thank you so much for your help! I think my previous TOK presentation focused too much on facts rather than knowledge. I am more aware of the difference between truths and knowledge now. Would it be wise for me to do my fourth question in relation to different AOKs? For example I use that KQ and explore claims and counterclaims from the perspectives of different AOKs. As for an RLS, I am a little lost hence a little more research would be needed for the KQ. Prior to this I was leaning more towards my first question but upon reading your comment, I was thinking of doing the third question. Maybe instead the question should read "To what extent is the construction of knowledge by authoritative figures in history influenced by emotion?". I can then pull into the fact that most knowledge claimed by these leaders are made up due to fear which is through emotion and compare this with reason. Perhaps I could also explore the construction of knowledge in other areas and if knowledge plays a part in it too? As for the RLS, once again it could be the manipulation of information in Apartheid South Africa. Due to the Whites being scared of the large number of blacks, they suppressed by feeding them with false information. I could also bring in Language and the Arts through George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984. That shows how construction of knowledge is based through emotion (pigs in Animal Farm feeding lies due to their greed/want to have more). Would this be an alright KQ and exploration?
  5. Hey guys, I recently did my TOK presentation and I didn't get a good grade on it hence I would be re-doing it. I've decided to do my TOK presentation about whitewashing/authorities using their power to manipulate knowledge. There are many instances of this which I've learnt in history (eg: Sharpeville Massacre, Amritsar Massacre, manipulation of information in USSR). It made me question if the knowledge gotten from history can be deemed valid/true. Some questions I've come up with include: 1. How much evidence is needed to validate knowledge gained from history? 2. Under what circumstance is the manipulation of shared knowledge by authorities justified? 3. How can the manipulation of shared knowledge by authorities be justified? 4. How much evidence is needed before personal knowledge becomes shared knowledge? (This doesn't really relate to the RLS but is another question I came up with). Thank you so much!